Africa is the world's second largest and second most populous continent, after Asia. Africa covers 6% of the Earth's total surface area and 20.4% of the total land area. With 1.0 billion people, it accounts for about 14.72% of the world's human population.

Americas are lands in the Western hemisphere of the world. In English, the plural form of the Americas is often used to refer to the landmasses of North America and South America with their associated islands and regions.

Asia is the world's largest and most populous continent, located primarily in the eastern and northern hemispheres. With approximately 3.879 billion people, it hosts 60% of the world's current human population.

Europe is the world's second-smallest continent by surface area, covering about 10,180,000 square kilometres or 2% of the Earth's surface and about 6.8% of its land area. Yet the borders of Europe, can incorporate cultural and political elements.

Allegations of unwanted sexual advances from various individuals against the US President Donald Trump, movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, television executive Roger Ailes, political commentator Bill O’Reilly, producer Brett Ratner, actor Kevin Spacey, publisher Knight Landesman, director James Toback and many others have sparked a nationwide “ #metoo ” movement and have reminded us the reality of the ongoing oppression of women. Although the media and entertainment have come under scrutiny recently, sexual abuse and harassment are not limited to them or other social platforms in its existence. Unwanted sexual advancement is widespread where no profession, country, or religion is exempt. Its victims include people from all walks of life: maids, servants, and laborers to engineers, lawyers, and doctors. It does not matter what clothes they wear. In particular, women are not safe from unwanted advancement, public or private: workplace, home, malls, supermarkets, and theaters. The lack of attention, by the male and female population, to the treatment of women is alarming. It is time to globally define the unwanted sexual advancement and criminalize it.

For working women, under no circumstances, should they feel that such unwarranted approaches “are the way it is”, “get used to it”, or “a necessity to climb the corporate ladder”.

Harassing, assaulting, and raping women are globally so common that we have become both consciously and unconsciously insensitive to them, so they get little attention. Historically, women have been subordinated by society, manipulated in power struggles, and used for sexual satisfaction. In conflicts, they are soft targets, assaulted and raped to punish challengers or force them to submit. We must strive toward a world where even fully undressed women would not be subject to any unwanted sexual advancement.

In advertising, it is common, as far back as the 1950’s and even earlier, that women were projected as only good for sex or homemaking. The ads were often racy, implying sexual innuendos or her dream to clean. Present day, women are still very much used in advertising the same way. This way of thinking is embedded in the media and portrayal of women and has only been projected and manipulated further from there. It goes deeper in movies and the film industry as well. It is widely known that watching movies affects our hobbies, career choices, relationships, and mental status. An example is BMW reportedly paid a few million dollars to the James Bond franchise in 1995 for James Bond to drive BMW, which made the company over $200 million in revenues.

In the movies and the films, most roles where women bare all, are not adding character value to the role or movie itself. Often, female roles are subjected to nudity and sexuality alone. In more recent films and media trending, we see films trying to re-popularize the idea of a submissive woman. This is a very dangerous idea to promote for women, because while Hollywood may romanticize it, the harsh reality is that many of the submissive portrayals of women in film are much closer to abuse than anything romantic or loving at all. By romanticizing ideas of this culture and others in film, i.e. making adultery/infidelity and violence common place, society slowly becomes numb to the reality and cruelty truly associated with some of these actions. It influences men to be more aggressive towards women and women to be more submissive. Men and women should redefine what is acceptable based on the standards they perceive as normal.

So why are we letting this become the norm?

Most importantly, education is the best answer. Children at an early age should be taught ethics that include respecting themselves and others. They should be informed and feel safe as to what constitutes unwanted advancement, verbal or physical. Nevertheless, unwanted sexual advancement must be criminalized.

The Saudi-led coalition, supported by the United States and Israel, continues its devastating aerial attacks on the impoverished Yemen. The unprovoked assault is in clear violation of the UN Charter. According to the UN Yemen envoy Jamal Benomar, Yemeni factions were close to a negotiation before the Saudi-led intervention.

When Yemenis asserted their sovereignty in 2015, Saudi Arabia expanded its savagery of bloodbath that began in 18th century under the banner of Wahhabism into Yemen. After two years subjecting Yemen to genocidal attacks, Yemen has demonstrated to the world the example of courage, determination, and resistance.

Wahhabism is the official religion of Saudi Arabia. It totally rejects religious freedom. It is a radical interpretation of Sunni-Islam that consider all other Muslims and adherents of other religions infidels, deserving death. Wahhabi history is engulfed with bloodbath and its ideology has inspired al-Qaeda, al-Nusrat, Taliban, Boko Haram, and Daesh (aka ISIS). Saudi Arabia, along with Qatar, has provided financial and logistic support to terrorist groups, including ISIS. In the 9/11 tragedy, 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudis.

To rationalize its support of the absolute monarchies that back terrorism and commit genocide, the United States denigrates Iran, labels it supporting terrorists, and condemns its support of the besieged Yemen. In reality, Iran remains the only state standing against the Wahhabi terrorism in the region, not only in Yemen but also in both Iraq and Syria. The United States talks tough but supports states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar that clandestinely support terrorist groups like ISIS. If the United States is truly interested in peace, it should be standing by Iran against the terrorists.

The United States, a symbol of democracy, could assume responsibility by refraining from arming the states like Saudi Arabia but persuading them to liberalize and work towards peace in the Middle East.

Put aside the controversial Israel, Iran remains the only country in the region with appreciable protected Jewish and Christian communities. Iranians participate in their election in record numbers to the envy of many Western democracies. Iranian president tweets Rosh Hashanah and Christmas greetings. For more information, read an article by Major Danny Sjursen, a US Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point, "Stop Vilifying Iran".

The United States, a symbol of democracy, could assume responsibility by refraining from arming the states like Saudi Arabia but persuading them to liberalize and work towards peace in the Middle East.

European nations waged wars against one another for centuries. The two European wars WWI and WWII engulfed the world and were the deadliest in human history. Over 100 million people died as a result of these two wars. Majority of those who died were women, children, teenagers, and young men. Since WWII, what distracted the Europeans from waging wars against one another was the United States, which provided the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe, modernizing industries and encouraging cooperation amongst nations. To this day, the United States continues keeping its military forces in the region and redirecting Europe’s attention outward towards influencing affairs in other regions through vehicles such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. These initiatives promulgated peace in Europe, paving the way for the rise of European Union. However, peace in Europe and America may be about to change. The recent emergence of nationalism first in Europe and now in the United States could be the culprit.

“So it is the human condition that to wish for the greatness of one’s fatherland is to wish evil to one’s neighbors,” said Voltaire. Nationalism is a poisonous idea for it is a feeling of superiority over others and hostility towards other nations. It naturally leads to interventionism, conflicts, and wars. It contrasts with patriotism, which is being prideful of one’s own people or nation for its accomplishments, ready to cooperate with others towards doing good deeds, and willing to defend it against any foreign aggression. While patriotism is productive, nationalism is destructive. In the Iran-Iraq War, Iraqis and their accomplices acted on the behalf of the Arab nationalists and the Iranian defenders were patriots. In the Ukraine conflict, the Russians behaved as nationalists and Ukrainians as patriots. In the Iraq conflict, ISIS terrorists are behaving as Wahhabi nationalists and Iraqi defenders as patriots.

In Europe, the nationalists are gaining power in numerous countries, including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. This year, the United Kingdom nationalists led the vote to leave the European Union. In his last Presidential visit to Greece, President Obama addressed the threat of nationalism in Europe. "We know what happens when Europeans start dividing themselves up and emphasizing their differences and seeing a competition between various countries in a zero-sum way," President Obama said. "The 20th century was a bloodbath. And for all the frustrations and failures of the project to unify Europe, the last five decades have been periods of unprecedented peace, prosperity, and growth in Europe."

The United States was founded upon liberal individualism, common language and culture, but not religious or ethnic nationalism. It has been a melting pot, welcoming immigrants and providing opportunities. This year, however, white racism emerged influencing the presidential election. Through the campaign rhetoric, the white citizens felt marginalized and saw immigration and terrorism as the countries’ major problems.

Nationalism as it is expressed in Europe and the United States is harming our democratic virtues and waning our rule of law. If unabated, it will leave us all economically exploited and morally humiliated. We could remember that it was the German nationalism that empowered Hitler and afterward brought shame to the Germans. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” said George Santayana.Fortunately, we all share the same basic needs and desires: food, clothing, shelter, prosperity, and respect. Nature has plenty to offer to us all. May we release our fears behind judgment, control, and power thus opening the avenue to peace worldwide!

“Arbaeen should be listed in the Guinness Book of World Records in several categories: biggest annual gathering, longest continuous dining table, largest number of people fed for free, largest group of volunteers serving a single event, all under the imminent threat of suicide bombings.” Sayed Mahdi al-Modarresi. “World's biggest Pilgrimage Now Underway, And Why You’ve Never Heard of it!” Huffington Post, November 24, 2015. It is the world's biggest annual pilgrimage, so why have we NEVER heard of it?

Arbaeen memorializes the end of the 40-day mourning period for the brutal death of Imam Hosein, the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson and third Shia Imam over 1300 years ago. It is on a lunar calendar and falls on November 20th this year. Millions of people from around the globe gather in Iraq’s holiest city of Karbala to commemorate Arbaeen, one of the most revered Islamic religious occasions.

This annual event attracts over five times more people than the annual Islamic Hajj pilgrimage. In contrast to Hajj that is riddled with accidents and troubles, the Arbaeen event goes peaceful. While Hajj consists of exclusively Muslims, Arbaeen breaks across ethnic, racial, religious, and national barriers. Although it is initiated by Shia Muslims as spiritual reawakening, the participants include Sunnis, Ibadis, Christians, Jews, Yazidis, and Zoroastrians as both pilgrims and volunteers in service of the devotees.

Last year, Iraqi officials estimated that about 22 million people from across the world participated in the event. Millions of the pilgrims began their journey on foot from Najaf, 80-kilometers away, a distance that takes 3 to 5 days, towards Karbala. Pilgrims came on foot from other places as far as Basra, 510 kilometers from Karbala. Throughout their journey, the pilgrims were served with free water, hot meals, foot massages, and housing by nearby Iraqi local residents who consider the acceptance of such offers as a bestowing honor on them.

We may think that the presence of ISIS in Iraq could inhibit pilgrims from participating in the event. In contrast, it draws out more pilgrims in masses in defiance displaying of faith in humanity never seen before anywhere around the world. It is clear that people from all walks of life see Imam Hosein as a universal and meta-religious symbol of courage, compassion, love, and freedom.

We haven’t heard of Arbaeen because press is primarily interested with negative news, embellished tabloids, and controversial matters. Positive news and inspiring stories are often ignored, especially when it relates to Islam. When a few hundreds of anti-Putin people demonstrate in Russia, anti-authority in Iran, or anti-communism in China, it makes headlines. However, the world’s greatest peaceful annual event like Arbaeen with longest continuous free dining table and sleep accommodations, none of it paid by any government or corporation, and attended by over twenty million people in defiance of imminent terror fails to make even a single headline. When it somehow does, it gives hope to humanity that the universal peace is achievable!
Dr. Mehdi Alavi, President

In its fifth edition of the Civility Report, Peace Worldwide Organization declares that we are moving slowly, but surely towards a more free and peaceful world. The report evaluates each country within the United Nations providing scores in human rights, democracy, and peace. These scores are all integrated into a composite civility score. The scores are based on reviews of over a dozen international organizations, including the United Nations, Freedom House, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, World Bank, Vision of Humanity, and Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

The highest civility scores are primarily located in countries of Western Europe. They went to Norway, followed by Japan and Sweden. Nevertheless, opportunities still exist for all countries to improve their records. Western Europe and North America could improve their scores by treating minorities better, addressing their immigrant worker issues, and avoiding initiating problems in less developed countries. The rest of the world could improve their scores by respecting human rights and welcoming freedom of expression, association, and assembly. Powerful nations could resort to negotiation and refrain from the military ventures or threating other nations under the pretense of protecting national interest.

In 2015, the United States restored normal relations with Cuba after 50 years, which encouraged Cuba to allow expression of religious rights. Numerous countries showed improvement in civility as well when they also provided more domestic freedoms to their citizens; most notably, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Liberia, Mali, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka. Nigeria conducted an election that led to new political leaders; however, its progress was offset by its armed forces raiding the home of Ibrahim Zakzaky and massacring hundredths of his unarmed followers.

Unfortunately, violence threatened freedom in Central America, specifically El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. The civil war in South Sudan continued, causing a large number of killings, rapes, and displacement of civilians. The situations in the Middle East deteriorated. In Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) continued killing innocent people of the non-Wahhabi sect and destroying historical monuments. The terrorists also attacked some European targets, causing Islamophobia across Europe. The lack of support by most Europeans caused many refugees to lose their lives at sea in their desperate attempts to reach Europe. The European intolerance towards the Muslims brought question to whether Europe is truly an open society.

Saudi Arabia waged air-war against Yemenis to install a puppet government. Amnesty International (AI) accused Saudi-led coalition of committing war crimes against Yemenis. AI pleaded with the United States and United Kingdom to stop sales of arms to Saudi Arabia, but their calls fell on deaf ears. In Saudi Arabia, the Wahhabi clergy was left alone to issue contradictory edicts instigating international terrorism so long as it supported the Saudi government.

In the Middle East, an international agreement was reached between Iran and P5+1 (United States, Russia, China, France, and United Kingdom, —plus Germany) on Iran’s nuclear program. Despite the strong opposition by the hardliners in the United States and Iran, it is likely that the agreement will pave the way for promoting peace in the region. Iran is on the path of developing an Islamic democracy opposing Wahhabi extremism promulgating from Saudi Arabia.

The report’s analyses and scores provide a great tool for the governments to prioritize their reform policies in order to improve their international standings. They can also assist governments, international companies, and other entities in assessing the risks of conducting business in other countries.

It is hoped that the ideas put forth in the Civility Report will stimulate the readers to think of ways for humanity to cooperate in solving common global problems, engage in dissolving disputes, respect the sanctity of life, and live together peacefully.

Dr. Mehdi Alavi, PresidentPeace Worldwide Organization

Please support our peace mission by generously donating and sharing this article with others.

"If you think the war in Iraq was hard, an attack on Iran would, in my opinion, be a catastrophe," said the former Defense Secretary Bob Gates. Now, many of the same Congressmen who supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are posturing to reject the President Obama’s Iran Deal. An action that could lead to a war with a country that is much more advanced and powerful than both Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, American politics appear to be unduly influenced by the Israeli domestic politics, where Prime Minister Netanyahu is playing tough to keep together his conservative coalition. President George Washington wisely advised us to nurture good relations with all nations but never be a slave to any nation.

From the very start, Iran insisted that its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes. As a United States presidential candidate in the 2007 Democratic primary debate, Mr. Obama expressed his willingness to meet with Iranian leaders without any preconditions. The United States President Obama fulfilled his first inaugural address’ commitment when he said, "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

Now, Congress is about to make another tragic mistake. Congress authorized the war in Afghanistan in 2001 and the war in Iraq in 2002. The U. S. led invasions toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, but caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Afghans and Iraqis and the deaths of thousands of American forces. The war in Afghanistan provided the best publicity to al-Qaeda, once confined to Afghanistan and Sudan are now operating nearly everywhere. The war in Iraq empowered the Shia majority but alienated the Saddam’s Sunni minority and forced some of them into insurgency. Today, Afghanistan and Iraq are both in worse shape than they were prior to the U. S. led invasions. Now, many of those Congressmen regret supporting the invasions. Presidential candidate Jeb Bush openly declares that his brother’s invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

“The Iran nuclear deal is a good one for all concerned,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a research professor of international dispute resolution at the University of Notre Dame.The world powers persuaded Iran to dismantle most of its nuclear program, reduce its number of the centrifuges by about 70 percent, limit its stockpile of enriched uranium to only 2 percent, stop its production of weapon grade plutonium at Arak, and turn its deeply buried nuclear facility into a research center at Fordow. In exchange, Iran gets the relief of economic sanctions, the $100 billion in frozen assets, the lifting of international arms embargo, and the continuing of nuclear research and development for peaceful purposes. Most importantly, the deal has opened the channel of communication between the world powers and the regional power of Iran to resolve other issues including ISIS in the Middle East.

The Iran Deal may not be perfect but it is the best that we have. During the Cold War, one would vividly remember the strong opposition to SALT I (1972) during the Nixon Administration and SALT II (1979) during the Carter Administration. These events are now heralded as great American accomplishments. The landmark agreement with Iran on the nuclear program will also be looked back at as a great American undertaking. We don’t need another war!

Dr. Mehdi Alavi, PresidentPeace Worldwide Organization

Please support our peace mission by generously donating and sharing this article with others.

"If you think the war in Iraq was hard, an attack on Iran would, in my opinion, be a catastrophe," said the former Defense Secretary Bob Gates. From the start, Iran insisted that its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes. American and Iranian leaders deserve recognition for acting rationally in resolving the nuclear issues with an international agreement. As a United States presidential candidate in the 2007 Democratic primary debate, Mr. Obama expressed his willingness to meet with Iranian leaders without any preconditions. The United States President Obama fulfilled his first inaugural address’ commitment when he said, "extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

The deal is mutually beneficial to all parties. The world powers persuaded Iran to dismantle most of its nuclear program, reduce its number of the centrifuges by about 70 percent, limit its stockpile of enriched uranium to only 2 percent, stop its production of weapon grade plutonium at Arak, and turn its deeply buried nuclear facility into a research center at Fordow. In exchange, Iran gets the relief of economic sanctions, the $100 billion in frozen assets, the lifting of international arms embargo, and the continuing of nuclear research and development for peaceful purposes.

“The Iran nuclear deal is a good one for all concerned,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a research professor of international dispute resolution at the University of Notre Dame. “And it is certainly not a unilateral agreement where the United States could impose terms. Part of the deal is that the U.N. Security Council will lift sanctions on Iran.”

Most importantly, the deal has opened the channel of communication between the world powers and the regional power of Iran to resolve other issues including ISIS in the Middle East. It is expected that there will be opposition from some Republicans. However, American history is filled with examples of great diplomatic agreements such as the Treaty of Versailles (1919), Strategic Arms Limitation Talk (1972), and Strategic Arms Limitation Talk (1979) that were opposed by many Republicans. They are all now heralded as great American accomplishments. The landmark agreement with Iran on nuclear program will also be looked back at as a great American undertaking.

Dr. Mehdi Alavi, PresidentPeace Worldwide Organization

Please support our peace mission by generously donating and sharing this article with others.

Once again, the United Nations (UN) has found itself powerless in the face of an international aggression. The UN has failed to stop the killings of the innocent Yemenis in the aerial attacks by the Saudi-led Arab coalition. The coalition consists of Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, UAE, and Sudan with the United States providing logistical support. The assault is also supported by Israel, which confirms suspicion in the region that the Arab authoritarian regimes’ policies are also aligned with Israeli interests. The unprovoked assault is in clear violation of the UN Charter.
According to the UN Yemen envoy Jamal Benomar, Yemeni factions were close to a negotiation before the March 25 Saudi-led intervention.
Yemen has one of the highest mortality rates in the world with more than half its population living in dire poverty. According to OXFAM International, ten million or approximately 40-percent of Yemenis lack basic food and 60-percent of the children suffer from malnutrition. Corruption in Yemen is an epidemic, ranked 161 among 175 countries and territories by Transparency International in 2014.
This month, in the midst the Arab’s aerial bombings of Yemen, the United States President Barack Obama met with the Arab Allies at Camp David. Reportedly, the President discussed the ongoing negotiation with Iran but failed to reason with the Saudi-led Arab coalition to stop bombing Yemen. If such an aggression was committed by Russia or China, the United States and the European Allies would have been charging the unprovoked assault as a clear violation of international law.
Perhaps, the Saudi-led Arab coalition wanted a war to distract their unhappy population. However, if the assault continues, the young may soon lose interest in the war and begin an uprising. It is in the Arabs’ interests to stop their attack on Yemen while their young people are still rallying behind it. The Arabs could address their own internal discontent and allow some freedom to their oppressed citizens.
The United States would benefit long-term by abandoning its support of the dictators and encouraging freedom and peace in the region. In Yemen, she could play a positive role by joining others in facilitating the negotiation among the factions in support of democratic representation.
The Saudi-led coalition and the United States can all come to the realization that lasting peace is only achievable through negotiation!

Dr. Mehdi Alavi, PresidentPeace Worldwide Organization

Please support our peace mission by generously donating and sharing this article with others.

The President of the United States Barack Obama should be applauded for approaching Iran to bring some stability in the Middle East. Obama’s letter expressed the shared interest in combatting the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The rise of ISIS threatens the region, particularly Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Ironically, it was chiefly Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi muftis (religious scholars) who issued fatwas (edicts) sanctioning the killings of non-Wahhabis and inspiring the existence of groups such as ISIS, which are now threatening Saudi Arabia itself. If ISIS is not brought to justice for the atrocities that it has committed in Iraq and Syria, its destructive ideology will spill over into other non-Wahhabi countries, causing immense killings and destruction in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere.
ISIS is a threat to the world security. Wahhabi extremists such as ISIS brutally kill non-Wahhabis and seize the victims’ properties. They are a threat to both Shias and Sunnis. Wahhabi hatred for Shias is well known. However, the majority of their victims in Iraq have so far been Sunnis who refused to convert to Wahhabism or submit to Wahhabi demands.
Despite posturing in Washington against Iran by some politicians who play on the voters’ emotions, the United States and its allies cannot alone bring stability into the region. If the invasion and bombing could bring peace, they would have brought peace to Afghanistan and Iraq. After years of Western intervention, both countries are still embroiled in division and conflicts. American warmongers fear peace far more than war for peace might threaten their political standing. To defeat ISIS, the United States has to work with Iran.
ISIS also threatens Iran. For that reason, Iran was the first nation that provided weapons and military advisors in the support of Iraq and its Kurdish region to combat ISIS. Iranian leaders realize that Iran by itself cannot defeat ISIS for the United States and its allies in the region could undo any Iranian victory. Unless the Iraqis rise to the occasion, Iran needs Western cooperation in defeating ISIS.
Evidently, the Iranian policies differ from those of the United States on many fronts. However, one thing is clear that ISIS threatens both countries. The mutual threat to the United States and Iran opens a door for cooperation. And, the success in Iraq might open the door to resolve the Afghan and Syrian conflicts, as well.
Meanwhile, American Arab allies in the Middle East still allow individuals and media through press, television, and internet to inspire, promote, and support organizations such as ISIS. The United States could ask these countries to pacify the provocation emanating form their territories.
Mending the relationship between the United States and Iran is necessary in improving global security. Let us support President Obama’s approach to Iran!

Dr. Mehdi Alavi, President

Peace Worldwide Organization

Please support our peace mission by generously donating and sharing this article with others.

The United Nations’ Security Council has declared Israel an occupying force as it has taken control of Gaza’s air, sea and nearly all land borders. The occupation has deprived the Gazans from enjoying basic human rights. By the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel was obliged to protect the occupied Gazans due to its presence in the territory. Instead, Israel has subjected the Gazans to continuous harassment, collective punishment, and severe travel restriction. Furthermore, years of off-and-on negotiations have gone nowhere in freeing the Palestinians from the Israeli yoke. To attain freedom, Gazans feel forced to resist the occupation by all means.
In this recent conflict, Hamas has fired over 3,000 rockets into Israel and Israel has disproportionately retaliated with over 4,500 airstrikes onto the densely populated Gaza. Over 1,850 Palestinians and 65 Israelis have been killed. Of the 65 Israelis killed only a few were civilians. On the contrary, the United Nations reported that at least 72 percent of the Palestinians killed were women and children. The UN shelters and schools were not even spared. According to Human Rights Watch, Israeli forces have even deliberately killed Gazan civilians who were fleeing the potential areas of conflict, thereby violating the international laws of war.
The disproportionate killings of the Palestinians by Israelis would not have been possible without the support of the United States, United Kingdom, and their Arab clients in the Middle East. American politicians continue to support the Israelis despite widespread protests across the United States in support of Gazan human rights. In contrast, some British politicians have shown courage to stand against a once mighty Britain. "[Israeli assaults] are disproportionate, ugly and tragic and will not do Israel any good in the long run," said London Mayor Boris Johnson who is seen as a possible future successor to Britain Prime Minister David Cameron.
Oppression strengthens the moral resolve of the oppressed but destroys any trace of morality in the oppressor. The “When Genocide is Permissible” article in the Jerusalem-based online newspaper, The Times of Israel, was withdrawn due to widespread international protests but it demonstrated Israel’s moral decline due to the oppression of the Palestinians. Israeli aggression is not only counterproductive but also demoralizes its own nation.
Today, Israel justifies its actions by claiming that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Such a claim is hypocritical for both sides have blood on their hands. Hamas’ indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel terrorizes some innocent Israelis and Israel’s disproportionate retaliations kill many innocent Gazans. It is time to pause, forgive, and negotiate to end the horrific cycle of conflict once for all!

Dr. Mehdi Alavi, President

Peace Worldwide Organization

Please support our peace mission by generously donating and sharing this article with others.

Americans must be concerned with Wahhabi threat for 150 to 200 of the ISIS terrorists are reportedly Americans who could return home and cause harm far worse than that of 9/11.
In 2013, the European Parliament issued a report identifying Wahhabism as the source of international terrorism. Wahhabism can be seen in the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), al-Qaeda, al-Nusrat, Talaban, al-Shabaab, and Boko Haram. Also, the nineteen terrorists who crashed two commercial planes into the World Trade Center in New York in 2001 held this belief. If we are serious about resolving Wahhabi terrorism, we must seek the root of the problem, which is primarily based in Saudi Arabia.
The ISIS invasion of Iraq is not a Sunni-Shia conflict as stated by United States’ President Obama and international media. It is a conflict between the Wahhabi terrorists and the world. To characterize ISIS’ occupation as a Sunni-Shia conflict is completely irresponsible for it would generate tension between the Sunni and minority-Shia communities across the world.
The mass killing of Sunnis by ISIS within the Sunni Triangle testifies that Wahhabi extremists are not Sunnis despite ISIS’ claim. If Islam truly means peace, then they cannot be Muslims either. ISIS fighters, like other Wahhabi extremist, hate Christians, Jews, and other non-Wahhabis.
In 2010, the United States Secretary of State Hilary Clinton stated that Saudi Arabia is a “critical source of terrorist funding” (The Guardian December 5, 2010). The solution to the terrorism is not to attack Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, or other countries but rather to convince the Persian Gulf Arab States, especially the Saudi Kingdom, that it is in their own interest to treat international terrorism as a top priority.

Dr. Mehdi Alavi, PresidentPeace Worldwide Organization

Please support our peace mission by generously donating and sharing this article with others.

We maintain our position that the United States is on the wrong side in the Syrian conflict for encouraging and arming the so-called “moderates,” which consist of the insurgents and foreign fighters in Syria.

In August 2011, President Barack Obama said, “the time has come for President Assad to step aside.” This ill-advised policy has globally strengthened the al-Qaeda and their cooperatives whose ultimate goals are the destruction of the world, as we know it.

What is most needed in Syria is peace! Arming people in Syria would not bring peace, but would further increase the degree of carnage and destruction. Both Russia and Iran clearly see the destructive impact of al-Qaeda’s bloody ideology on the world and that is why they steadfastly support the Assad regime. After the tragic 9-11 and the Boston Marathon, the United States could have also come up with the same conclusion that al-Qaeda Syria is disastrous for the world. Unfortunately, the United States’, encouraging the Syrian conflict to oust Assad, has resulted in the deaths of over 150,000 people plus the displacement of over 1.5 million.

We urge the Obama Administration to stop supporting the Syrian conflict, whether directly or through surrogates (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and others) and allow the Syrian people to decide on their leader through an internationally supervised ballot. To start the process, the United States could work with Syria, Russia, and Iran to provide some incentives for the Assad regime to cooperate in favor of a democratic political institution where the Alawis, Shias, Christians, Jews, and other can all live in peace.

Dr. Mehdi Alavi, President

Peace Worldwide Organization

Please support our peace mission by generously donating and sharing this article with others.

"I have a profound responsibility to try to resolve our differences peacefully, rather than rush toward conflict," President Obama said at the White House after the agreement with Iran was reached in Geneva on Sunday, November 24. As early as in 2008 in his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama offered to negotiate with Iran. In his first inaugural address to the nation in 2009, he offered to extend his hand to Iran if Iran would "unclench their fist." After the Iranian President Ahmadinejad ignored his gesture, he galvanized global support for sanctions to force Iran into negotiations.

In the 2013 Iranian presidential election, Iranians surprised the world by electing Mr. Rouhani, who campaigned to work for improved international relations and a better economy. That gave President Obama an opportunity to fulfill his 2008 campaign promise to reach to Iran.

Iran and six world powers, following marathon negotiations in Geneva, reached an agreement for Iran to curb its nuclear program for the next six months in exchange for some sanctions relief and promise of no new sanctions while the agreement is in effect. Iran reaffirmed its long time position that it will not, under any circumstances, plan or develop any type of nuclear weapons.

Like other peace initiatives, there are voices that prefer conflict to peaceful resolution in both countries. American extremists and foreign allies demand unachievable terms such as asking Iran for the complete shutdown of its uranium program. Iranian extremists persist that Iran has every right to pursue its nuclear program peacefully and develop sufficient grade of materials to support its scientific research, medical laboratories, and power plants. In light of such extremism, both President Obama and President Rouhani deserve support for their courage to opt for negotiation based on realistic goals.

Dr. Mehdi Alavi, President

Peace Worldwide Organization

Please support our peace mission by generously donating and sharing this article with others.

On October 26, 2013 at the United Nations (UN), Iranian President Hassan Rouhani called for global nuclear disarmament and elimination. "No nation should possess nuclear weapons, since there are no right hands for these wrong weapons," Mr. Rouhani told the UN General Assembly meeting on nuclear disarmament. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has long issued a religious edict that forbids making, storing, and using a nuclear weapon, for it indiscriminately kills people and destroys properties.

The world could also give some attention to commercial usage of the nuclear energy remembering the tragic experience from the Japan’s nuclear meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi power plant of 2011. Its contaminated remains are still surfacing on many coasts far away from Japan. The argument that nuclear power is safe can no longer hold since such an accident, infrequent as might be, impacts the whole world. The storage of waste product of the reactors remains problematic; the waste is highly radioactive with isotopes radiating for millions of years.

In fact, the mere threat of some nations having nuclear weapons compels other nations to attain such weapons to counter any nuclear attack. The devastating effect of the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII still plays on our mind. That makes the attaining of such weapons immoral, hence, unacceptable. But, in a world where dictators dominate, it is unlikely that the democracies would readily drop their ultimate defensive weapons in hope for global peace.

However, the ultimate objective should be to free the world gradually from not only weapons of mass destruction (WMD) but also national militaries. That could be accomplished through the following stages:

First, focus could be on chemical weapons. Since these arms are poor state’s bombs, their elimination could be coupled with reduction of rich state’s nuclear weapons. International chemical and nuclear watchdogs could provide oversight for such tasks.

Second, arms transfer across national borders could be strictly prohibited.

Third, any type support of authoritarian regimes, financial or otherwise, could be banned. Further, UN could effectively promote fair and free elections in all countries. If necessary, it could restrict privileges to the authoritarian regimes. Democracy would not surrender their ultimate WMD in a world ruled by despots.

Fourth, armed forces personnel reduction across the board could be reduced to reasonable levels, periodically determined through negotiation at the UN.

Fifth, UNPeacekeepers could be expanded to the necessary level to enforce international law. This may be achieved by a broader mandate given to the UN to deal more effectively with the threats to world peace and security. As UN Peacekeepers expand, all states, led by the United States, could proportionately reduce their forces and reinforce their trust in the UN.

Sixth, each state with nuclear arsenal could gradually transfer control and operation of their nuclear cache to the UN.

Seventh, the UN could survey and guarantee, except for those territories in dispute, the national boundaries of all nations. For those in dispute, the UN could form an unbiased committee, consisting of the disputing nations and the UN arbitrators, to resolve the dispute and secure agreement from the disputing parties before giving a guarantee.

Eighth, when the world is free and lives in peace, UN could take the necessary steps to eliminate all nuclear arms.

We hope that Mr. Rouhani’s call will not fall upon deaf ears and the world will move towards the elimination of nuclear arms and all other WMDs.

Dr. Mehdi Alavi, President

Peace Worldwide Organization

Please support our peace mission by generously donating and sharing this article with others.

Last weekend, I met a woman who along with her family had fled Syria after her house was bombed. She said she does not care who did it, all she wants now is peace.

The Obama Administration has embarked to arm so called “moderates” consisting of the insurgents and foreign fighters in Syria. Like in the Cold War, the United States is entering another proxy war. This time, on one side are the United States and her allies and on the other side are Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah. What have been left out of the equation are the people of Syria, nearly 100,000 have been killed and over 1.5 million have been displaced. Arming more people in Syria would not resolve the issue at hand, but would further increase the degree of carnage and destruction. What is most needed in Syria is peace!

While the United States plans to arm the “moderate” factions in Syria through CIA covert operations, her allies Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are supporting Islamist factions, such as the al Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front, who are determined to turn Syria into another authoritarian state like Saudi Arabia. These states will ultimately be the losers. The experienced foreign fighters will eventually return home and become a serious threat to the authoritarian regimes in the region, particularly, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

This bloodbath must stop! In August 2011, Obama said that “the time has come for President Assad to step aside.” This desire should not be accomplished by a bloody warfare that could eventually involve American forces on the ground like that in Vietnam. The United States could convene a peace conference that provides some incentives for the Assad regime to step aside in favor of a democratic political institution where the Alawis, Shias, Christians, Jews, and other minorities could enjoy equal rights.

Dr. Mehdi Alavi, President

Peace Worldwide Organization

Please support our peace mission by generously donating and sharing this article with others.

You Can Contribute Today

Peace Contest

P.W.O. Ambassador Message

Inspirational Video by Amnesty International

World News

UN News

Global Human Development

This Human Development Index is a composite statistic in which each country is differentiated by color ranging from dark green being very high human development to dark red being low human development.

Country Development

Development Index by Country is a composite statistic in which each country is differentiated by color ranging from dark blue being very high country development to light blue being low country development.

HDI for GDP/Capita

HDI for countries shows a very high correlation with respect to the logarithm of GDP per capita.